Share this

In the midst of an election awash with special interest money, corporate contributions, and secretive spending, the one thing that remains crystal clear is that when drowning in money, piling on more is not the answer.

The idea that returning to the soft money system or raising the maximum individual donation would lead to anything but more influence-buying and money in the system is ludicrous. Unlimited contributions caused enormous scandals, and it would be a huge mistake to turn back the clock to the pre-Watergate era and magnify monied corruption rather than dealing with the problems at hand.

The overarching answer to the flood of money is to empower individual voters by making election funding more representative of the public at large rather than so dependent on large dollar donors.

Currently, big money has far too great an influence on who can run in and who can win elections. The Fair Elections Now Act, introduced by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) would create a voluntary system of campaign finance in which candidates could accept a mix of small donations and matching public funds. Similar systems have worked well in state elections in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut, and help elevate the voices of ordinary constituents so that they are not drowned out by Wall Street and other special interests.

Additionally in the short-term, in order to give the public the information they need and to give politicians the breathing room to consider opting into a system of small donor focused public financing, we need to pass important reforms around disclosure and corporate accountability.

First, the Senate must enact the DISCLOSE Act, a measure with the simple and laudable goal of increasing transparency around how much money corporations, unions and special interest groups are spending on elections. As the secretive money continues to pour in to the 2010 cycle in the form of attack ads, the need for this key reform becomes ever clearer.

In addition to being overly opaque, the 2010 spending appears limitless and without check. After the Citizens United decision, CEOs and their directors can simply dip into their corporate treasuries and spend that money on elections without seeking approval or even informing the people who own their company -- the shareholders. In response to this issue, Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) introduced the Shareholder Protection Act, which would require prior shareholder approval of political spending for publicly held corporations. Investors should be protected from having their money used to support candidates at odds with their values.

The way forward remains one of reform and public empowerment rather than raising spending limits. The owners of a company should have a voice in how their money is spent, and when spending happens, the public should have the information so they can make educated decisions when voting.

And bottom line, we need a system where the public’s contributions to campaigns matter as much as big dollar donors.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.